A 
A 

0 
0 
0 
8 
6 
8 
4 
8 
4 


KREBS 
The  American  Citizen 


I 


; 


American 


A    DISCOURSE 


ON    THE 

NATURE  AND   EXTENT  OF   OUR  RELIGIOUS  SUBJECTION  TO 
THE  GOVERNMENT  UNDER  WHICH  WE  LIVE : 

INCLUDING   AN 


INQUIRY    INTO    THE    SCRIPTURAL     AUTHORITY    OF     THAT    PROVISION 

OF    THE    CONSTITUTION    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES,   WHICH 

REQUIRES    THE    SURRENDER    OF    FUGITIVE    SLAVES. 


DELIVERED    IN    THE 

RUTGERS  STREET  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH, 

IN    THE    CITY   OF    NEW   YORK,    ON    THANKSGIVING   DAY,  DECEMBER    12,    1850. 
AND  AFTERWARDS   AT  THEIR   REQUEST,  AS  A  LECTURE  BEFORE 

THE  YOUNG  MEN'S  ASSOCIATIONS  OF  ALBANY  AND  WATERFORD,  N,  Y,, 

ON    JANUARY    14TH    AND    15'fH,    1851. 


BY   JOHN   M.    KREBS,    D.D 


NEW  YORK  : 
CHARLES    SCRIBNER, 

145    NASSAU    STREET    AND    36    PARK    ROW. 

1851. 


"  HE  that  goeth  about  to  persuade  a  multitude  that  they  are  not  so  well 
governed  as  they  ought  to  be,  shall  never  want  attentive  and  favorable  hearers ; 
because  they  know  the  manifold  defects  whereunto  every  kind  of  regiment  is 
subject,  but  the  secret  lets  and  difficulties,  which  in  public  proceedings  are  in- 
numerable and  inevitable,  they  have  not  ordinarily  the  judgment  to  consider. 
And  because  such  as  openly  reprove  supposed  disorders  of  state  are  taken  for 
principal  friends  to  the  common  benefit  of  all,  and  for  men  that  carry  singular 
freedom  of  mind ;  under  this  fair  and  plausible  colour,  whatsoever  they  utter 
passeth  for  good  and  current.  That  which  wanteth  in  the  weight  of  their 
speech,  is  supplied  by  the  aptness  of  men's  minds  to  accept  and  believe  it. 
Whereas  if  we  maintain  things  that  are  established,  we  have  not  only  to  strive 
with  a  number  of  heavy  prejudices  deeply  rooted  in  the  hearts  of  men,  who 
think  that  herein  we  serve  the  time,  and  speak  in  favour  of  the  present  state 
because  thereby  we  either  hold  or  seek  preferment ;  but  also  to  bear  such  ex- 
ceptions as  minds  so  averted  beforehand  usually  take  against  that  which  they 
are  loth  should  be  poured  into  them." 

"  When  they  who  withdraw  their  obedience,  pretend  that  the  laws  which 
they  should  obey  are  corrupt  and  vicious;  for  better  examination  of  their 
quality,  it  behooveth  the  very  foundation  and  root,  the  highest  well-spring  and 
fountain  of  them  to  be  discovered." 

"  The  wisest  are  always  touching  this  point  the  readiest  to  acknowledge, 
that  soundly  to  judge  of  a  law  is  the  weightest  thing  which  any  man  can  take 
upon  him.  But  if  we  will  give  judgment  of  the  laws  under  which  we  live, 
first  let  that  law  eternal  be  always  before  our  eyes  as  being  of  principal  force 
and  moment  to  breed  in  religious  minds  a  dutiful  estimation  of  all  laws,  the  use 
and  benefit  whereof  we  see ;  because  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  laws  ap- 
parently good  are  (as  it  were)  things  copied  out  of  the  very  tables  of  that  high 
everlasting  law;  even  as  the  book  of  that  law  hath  said  concerning  itself:  'By 
me  kings  reign,  and'  by  me  '  princes  decree  justice.'  *  *  *  *  Further- 
more, although  we  perceive  not  the  goodness  of  laws  made,  nevertheless  sith 
(since)  things  in  themselves  may  have  that  which  we  peradventure  discern  not, 
should  not  this  breed  a  fear  in  our  hearts,  how  we  speak  or  judge  in  the  worse 
part  concerning  that,  the  unadvised  disgrace  whereof  may  be  no  mean  dis- 
honour towards  Him,  towards  whom  we  profess  all  submission  and  awe? 
Surely  there  must  be  very  manifest  iniquity  in  laws,  against  which  we  shall  be 
able  to  justify  our  contumelious  invectives.  The  chiefest  root  whereof,  when 
we  use  them  without  cause,  is  ignorance  how  laws  inferior  are  derived  from 
that  supreme  or  highest  law."— Hoofer  (Eccl.  Pol.,  Book  I.)  on  Lawt  in  general. 


UB8ARY 

OF  CALIFOHNU 
SANTA  BARBARA 


NEW  YORK,  December  18th,  1850. 

REVEREND  AND  DEAR  SIR  : 

We  have  the  honour  herewith  to  transmit  to  you  a  copy  of  a 
resolution  passed  by  the  Union  Safety  Committee  appointed  at 
the  Great  Meeting  of  Citizens  in  Castle  Garden,  on  the  30th  day 
of  October  last.  The  resolution  was  passed  unanimously  at  a 
meeting  of  the  Committee  held  last  evening,  and  is  as  follows : 

"  Whereas,  having  read  with  great  satisfaction  a  sketch  of  the 
Sermon  delivered  on  Thanksgiving  Day  by  the  Reverend  JOHN 
M.  KREBS,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  the  Rutgers  Street  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  believing  that  its  dissemi- 
nation would  be  of  great  public  benefit  at  this  crisis  in  our  affairs, 
— therefore  Resolved,  That  the  Reverend  Doctor  be  respectfully 
requested  to  furnish  a  copy  thereof  for  publication." 

We  execute  with  the  greatest  pleasure  the  duty  devolving  upon 
us  as  a  Corresponding  Committee  a  copy  of  the  resolution  above 
referred  to,  and  have  the  honour  to  subscribe  ourselves, 
With  great  respect, 

Your  fellow  citizens  and 
Obedient  servants, 

GEORGE  WOOD,  . 
HIRAM  KETCHUM, 
GEO.  B.  BUTLER, 
GEO.  DOUGLASS, 
L.  B.  CHASE, 
J.  T.  BRADY, 
A  G.  BENSON. 
To  Rev.  JOHN  M.  KREBS,  D.D. 


NEW  YORK,  January  19th,  1851. 

GENTLEMEN  : 

My  earlier  attention  to  the  request  you  have  transmitted  to 
me,  from  the  Union  Safety  Committee  of  this  city,  for  a  copy  of 
my  Sermon  on  the  recent  Thanksgiving  Day,  was  prevented  by 
my  absence  at  the  date  of  your  letter ;  and  my  earlier  compliance 
with  it,  by  the  use  to  which  the  discourse  was  put,  on  the  subse- 
quent occasions  specified  in  the  title-page  of  the  manuscript  here- 
with presented  to  the  Committee. 

In  publishing  .this  discourse,  I  am  aware  that  I  am  not  adding 
much,  if  anything,  to  the  amount  of  sound  instruction  already  con- 
veyed to  the  public  by  other  discourses  that  have  preceded  it 
from  the  press.  I  am  willing,  nevertheless,  to  add  my  testimony 
to  that  of  my  brethren  ;  especially  since  these  sentiments  have 
been  impugned,  and,  I  may  say,  misrepresented  by  a  portion  of 
the  newspaper  press.  And  I  do  so  the  more  cheerfully,  under 
the  approbation  of  such  a  body  of  my  fellow  citizens  as  yourselves 
and  the  committee  you  represent. 

These  sentiments,  however,  must  speak  for  themselves.  They 
have  been  formed  under  the  light  of  the  sacred  oracles,  by  an 
honest  desire  to  be  guided  only  by  the  Divine  Teaching.  The 
sole  question  for  us  all  is,  what  does  God  enjoin  ?  And  if  the 
answer  be  found  in  specific  precepts  of  His  Word,  they  are  to  be 
followed  as  surer  guides  in  the  interpretation  of  those  which  are 
more  general,  than  is  the  mere  unrestrained  inference  drawn  by 
men's  own  minds,  however  benevolent  they  claim  to  be.  God  is 
wiser  than  men.  He  is  better  than  men.  His  ways  are  not  as 
•men's  ways.  I  have  more  confidence  in  them  than  in  the 
plausible  doctrines  which  appeal  to  prejudice  or  feeling  ;  and  more 
hope  from  them  in  rendering  my  fellow  men,  whether  they  be  mas- 
ters or  servants,  good  and  happy  even  in  this  life,  than  from  the 
sophistries  and  devices  of  human  passion. 

I  have  not  seen  one  candid  attempt  to  state  and  meet  the  scrip- 
tural arguments  lately  published  in  support  of  the  Constitution 
and  the  Laws :  but  I  have  seen,  instead,  some  characteristic 
specimens  of  sneering,  vituperation,  and  calumny  against  the 
"clergy,"  as  being  hard  and  unsympathising,  and  even  as  being 


"  suborned''  to  the  cause  of  oppression.  This  is  a  small  matter, 
to  be  judged  by  man's  judgment.  But  it  is  a  serious  indication 
of  the  disloyal  spirit  that  is  abroad,  when  the  object  of  their 
assault  who  resort  to  these  tactics,  is  not  our  arguments,  but  the 
integrity  and  majesty  of  the  Supreme  Law  of  the  land,  which  we 
have  desired  to  vindicate.  Thus  believing,  1  am  glad  that  the 
pulpit  has  spoken  so  clearly,  and  as  with  one  consent.  And  in 
this  view,  I  readily  submit  my  own  remarks  on  this  great  ques- 
tion to  be  disposed  of  by  your  Committee  in  the  manner  expressed 
by  their  resolution.  I  have  the  honour  to  be, 
Very  respectfully, 

Your  fellow  citizen  and 
Obedient  servant, 

JOHN  M.  KREBS. 

To  Messrs.  GEORGE  WOOD,  HIRAM  KETCHUM,  &c.,  &c.,  Com- 
mittee. 


PROCLAMATION, 

By  HAMILTON  FISH,  Governor  of  the  State  of  New  York. 

THE  mercies  of  an  all-kind  Providence  call  for  an  acknowledg- 
ment of  gratitude  and  dependence  from  the  creatures  of  his 
bounties. 

The  year  which  is  about  to  close  has  been  marked  by  innumera- 
ble blessings  to  us  as  a  nation.  An  abundant  harvest  and  profita- 
ble labour  have  brought  rich  rewards  to  honest  industry.  Peace 
and  tranquillity  are  established  at  home,  and  no  discord  disturbs 
our  relations  abroad.  Health,  prosperity,  and  abundance  have 
been  freely  vouchsafed  to  us.  Civil  and  religious  liberty  prevail 
throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land.  And  to  all  is 
secured  the  free  exercise  of  the  worship  of  their  Creator  accord- 
ing to  their  own  faith.  And  on  this  occasion  we  should  not  for- 
get that,  while  an  inscrutable  Providence  has  seen  fit  to  remove 
during  the  past  year,  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  our  Union,  that 
same  Providence  has  preserved  us  under  the  trial  a  free  and  uni- 
ted people,  has  saved  us  from  anarchy  and  civil  commotion,  and 
has  continued  to  us  the  mild  operation  of  a  government  of  our 
own  adoption,  and  rulers  of  our  own  choice. 

I  do  therefore  designate  and  recommend  Thursday,  the  twelfth 
day  of  December  next,  to  be  observed  by  the  good  people  of  this 
State  as  a  day  of  public  thanksgiving  to  Almighty  God. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  subscribed  my  name,  and 
and  affixed  the  Privy  Seal  of  the  State,  at  the  City  of 

[L.  S.]  Albany,  this  31st  day  of  October,  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  fifty. 

HAMILTON  FISH. 
By  the  Governor  : — 

ROBT.  II.  MORRIS,  Private  Secretary. 


DISCOURSE. 


For  what  nation  is  there  so  great,  who  hath  God  so  nigh  unto  them,  as 
the  Lord  our  God  is,  in  all  things  that  we  call  upon  him  for!  And 
what  nation  is  there  so  great  that  hath  statutes  and  judgments  so 
righteous,  as  all  this  law,  which  I  set  before  you  this  day  ? 

DEUTERONOMY  iv.  7,  8. 

WITH  what  propriety  are  we  summoned  this 
day  to  the  contemplation  of  the  blessings  of  our 
lot,  and  to  give  thanks  to  God  our  benefactor. 
These  blessings  have  often  been  reviewed,  and 
are  well  summed  up  in  the  proclamation  of  the 
Governor  of  this  State,  appointing  the  observance 
of  this  day. 

The  year  which  has  elapsed  since  we  were 
last  convened  for  a  similar  purpose,  has  been  dis- 
tinguished not  only  by  the  continuance  to  us  of 
our  ordinary  mercies,  and  by  an  increase  of  our 
public  prosperity,  but  by  peculiar  tokens  of  the 
favour  of  Heaven.  It  was  at  an  anxious  juncture 
in  the  affairs  of  the  nation,  that  its  chief  magistrate 
was  removed  by  death.  And  for  months  preceding 
and  following  that  startling  event,  there  was  a 


8 

season  of  remarkable  excitement  on  '  political 
questions  of  the  greatest  magnitude,  which  having 
its  stormiest  manifestation  in  the  national  legisla- 
ture, sent  its  agitating  influences  throughout  the 
republic,  and  awakened  the  fears  of  many  a  patriot 
heart,  lest  we  might  soon  be  torn  by  disunion  and 
ravaged  by  civil  war.  But  "  the  foundations" 
were  not  "  destroyed."  Our  public  institutions, 
under  which  we  and  our  fathers  have  lived  in 
peace,  survived  the  shock;  and  counsels  of  wisdom 
and  amity  have  prevailed,  so  that,  we  meet  this 
day,  with  stronger  affection  than  ever  toward  the 
union  of  these  States,  and  with  firmer  hopes  of  the 
permanency  and  salutary  operation  of  those  great 
provisions  of  the  Constitution  which,  under  God, 
has  made  this  nation  so  great. 

To  what  are  we  indebted  for  the  concord,  which, 
(notwithstanding  some  appearances  to  the  contrary, 
where  the  ripples  upon  the  surface  of  the  waters 
of  strife — comparatively  few  and  far  between— 
have  not  yet  had  time  to  be  smoothed  down,)  to 
what  are  we  indebted  for  the  concord,  which  has 
been  developed  so  enthusiastically  throughout  our 
land  ?  What  is  it  that  has  secured  that  loyalty 
and  affection  displayed  by  our  people,  and  led 
them,  if  not  to  approve,  at  least,  to  acquiesce  in  the 
measures  of  government  and  yield  their  support  to 
those  fundamental  principles  which  are  at  the  basis 
of  the  union,  and  to  cherish  that  union  more  fondly  ? 
We  are  one  people, — one  family, — in  mutual 
kinsmanship, — bound  together  by  many  ties  of 
blood  and  affection, — and  reserved  for  one  destiny. 


But,  superior  even  to  this  strong  bond,  we  are 
united  by  the  controlling  power  of  a  national 
conscience  that  acknowledges  the  divine  authority 
of  the  public  law,  and  a  conviction  of  the  substan- 
tial equity  and  beneficence  of  the  government  to 
which  we  owe  allegiance.  And  this  feeling  may 
well  appropriate  for  its  own  expression  the 
language  which  so  well  befitted  Israel  of  old  : — 
"  What  nation  is  there  so  great  that  hath  statutes 
and  judgments  so  righteous,  as  all  this  law,  which 
I  set  before  you  this  day  ?"  Of  the  justness  of 
this  eulogium,  as  it  was  pronounced  by  the  Jewish 
lawgiver,  there  can  be  no  question.  Nor  less 
applicable  is  the  sentiment  to  us,  since  our  laws 
and  institutions  appeal  for  their  authority  to  the 
precepts  of  revelation,  and  have  sought  for  their 
form  and  force  in  those  great  principles  which  have 
been  divinely  disclosed  to  man  for  his  guidance  in 
the  practice  of  that  righteousness  which  exalteth  a 
nation. 

I  have  referred  to  the  fact  that  amid  our  har- 
mony and  prosperity  there  is  nevertheless  some 
appearance  of  discord  and  agitation.  But  even 
this  fact  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  truth  that  our 
people  desire  to  conform  their  laws  to  the  law  of 
God.  There  is  a  difference  of  opinion — honest  and 
conscientious  I  will  not  doubt — held  by  a  portion 
of  our  people,  in  regard  to  some  of  the  recent 
measures  of  government,  and  especially  in  regard 
to  one  of  those  measures,  which  they  deem  to  be 
in  conflict  with  the  will  of  God.  Nay,  in  some 
quarters  this  apprehension  has  taken  the  form  of 


10 

vituperation  and  resistance  to  the  law,  in  advising 
and  conspiring  to  throw  vexatious  obstacles  in  the 
way  of  its  execution,  and  in  counselling  to  perjury 
in  the  jury-box,*  and  to  rebellion  even  with  force 
and  arms ! — to  resistance  with  assassination  and 
blood ! !  f 

In  this  state  of  the  public  mind,  I  have  thought 
it  to  be  my  duty  to  consider  on  this  day  of  public 
thanksgiving,  our  religious  obligations  as  American 
citizens. 

I  have  not  selected  this  theme,  because  I  have 
any,  the  least,  suspicion  that  there  is  attached  to 
this  congregation,  a  single  person,  who  is  in  need 
of  rebuke  for  disloyalty  to  his  country,  or  in  any 
particular  danger  of  being  led  away  from  his  duty 
as  a  citizen,  into  violent  opposition  to  its  laws. 
You  have  not  been  under  the  instructions  of  this 
pulpit  so  long,  that  at  this  late  day,  you  are  to 
learn  for  the  first  time  your  obligations,  or  to  be 
called  as  from  an  opposite  course  of  thought  and 
action  to  the  practice  of  law-abiding  citizens. 

But  is  it  not  fit  that  we  should  be  put  in 
remembrance  even  of  what  we  knew  before, 
confirmed  in  sound  doctrine,  and  encouraged  in 
duty  ?  And  is  it  not  meet  also  to  consider  such 
truths  as  may  serve  to  set  at  rest  the  minds  which 
are  possibly  perplexed  and  doubtful  in  view  of  the 
alleged  conflict  between  the  duty  we  owe  to  God 
and  the  laws  that  are  framed  by  human  legisla- 
tion ? 

*  Theodore  Parker,  in  a  sermon  at  Boston, 
t  New  York  Independent. 


11 

The  Word  of  God  has  laid  down  certain 
injunctions  on  this  point,  which  at  once  indicate 
our  duty  as  men  and  the  duty  of  ministers  of  the 
gospel  in  reference  to  the  instruction  of  their 
hearers  and  the  subject-matter  of  their  instruction. 
For  example  : — addressing  Titus,  a  young  minister, 
the  Apostle  Paul  charges  him,  to  "  put  his  hearers 
in  mind  to  be  subject  to  principalities  and  powers,  to 
obey  magistrates,  to  be  ready  to  every  good  work,  to 
speak  evil  of  no  man,  to  be  no  brawlers,  but  gentle, 
shewing  all  meekness  unto  all  men"  (Titus,  iii.  ].) 
Is  it  necessary  here,  in  view  of  such  a  charge,  to 
enter  into  nice  distinctions  between  some  narrow 
definition  of  the  appropriate  sphere  of  ministerial 
duty,  and  the  wide  field  occupied  by  the  multiform 
relations  of  social  and  civil  life ; — as  some  men 
have  drawn  the  distinction,  and  would  forbid  us  to 
overstep  the  line  within  wrhich  they  would  restrain 
us  from  intermeddling  with  the  great  public  ques- 
tions to  which  the  moral  principles  of  the  gospel 
are  applicable  ?  It  is  true  indeed,  that  the  influ- 
ence of  the  pulpit  is  sometimes  invoked  and 
welcomed,  when  its  teachings  happen  to  fall  in 
with  the  views  of  those,  who,  upon  other  occa- 
sions, are  ready  to  rebuke  its  interference,  because 
then,  its  teachings  happen  to  be  adverse  to  some 
other  views  of  the  same  men.  And  it  is  true  too, 
that  the  pulpit  may  be  perverted,  to  themes  which 
have  no  relation  to  its  grand  design,  to  partisan  and 
factious  purposes,  to  the  support  of  wicked  rebel- 
lion on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other,  to  syco- 
phantic and  slavish  subserviency  of  wealth  and 


12 

power.     But  this   is  a  perversion,  and  is  widely 
different  from  its  just  and  commanded  instructions 
on  those  questions  which  comprehend  the  applica- 
tion  of  the  great  truths  of  the  gospel  to  the  morali- 
ties of  life  and  the  relations  of  mankind  to  each 
other  as  neighbours  and  friends,  as  parents  and 
children,  as  masters  and  servants,  and  not  less,  as 
citizens,  subjects  and  rulers.     The  Word  of  God 
has  laid  down  the  great  principles  of  duty  pertain- 
ing to  these  several  relations,  and  has  specifically 
enjoined  us  to  "  teach  and  exhort  these  things." 
And  this  is  to  be  done,  with  due  reference  to  the 
occasions  and    circumstances    in   which   we    are 
placed,  whether  men  will  hear,  or  whether  they 
will  forbear, — whether  the  scriptural  views  we  are 
bound  to  inculcate  fall   in    with  the   current  of 
public  opinion  and  favour,  or  run   counter  to  it. 
And,  in  regard  to  those  who  "  teach  otherwise," 
fomenting   disobedience    and   rebellion,    in   these 
very  relations,  we  are  told  that  they  are   "  proud, 
knowing  nothing,  but  doting  about  questions  and 
strifes   of   words,   whereof    cometh    envy,   strife, 
railings,   evil   surmisings,  perverse    disputings  of 
men  of  corrupt  minds,  and  destitute  of  the  truth, 
supposing  that    gain    is    godliness."     Could    any 
description  be  more  characteristic  of  some  of  the 
teachings  of  our  own  times,  on  this  very  point? 
And  we   are    explicitly  commanded  to   have   no 
fellowship  with  such,  and  to  give  them  no  coun- 
tenance :    for  this  is  the    injunction  which  binds 
us  farther, — "FROM   SUCH   WITHDRAW   THYSELF." 
(1  Timothy,  vi.  1—5.) 


13 

It  is  but  fulfilling  a  specific  duty  then,  incumbent 
on  the  ministry  as  such,  if,  as  best  I  may  be  able, 
I  put  you  in  mind  to  be  subject  to  principalities 
and  powers,  and  to  obey  magistrates. 

But  this  precept  of  the  Word  of  God  is  not  the 
only  one  bearing  upon  this  point.     I  have  quoted 
it  rather  as  a  sufficient  vindication  of  the  ministry 
for  teaching  the  obligations  under  which  we  are, 
even  in  the  highest  relations  of  civil  life.     And  as 
to  those  obligations  themselves,  which  we  are  to 
inculcate,  we  have  even  fuller  expositions  than  the 
brief,   but  comprehensive  injunction  on   which  I 
have  just  been  dwelling.     We  are  not  left,  either 
as  hearers  or  as  teachers,  to  the  abstract  notions, 
selfish  reasonings  and  fanciful  theories  of  men, — 
ourselves  or  others, — as  to  what  the  will  of  God  is  in 
this  matter.     How  largely  does  the  Apostle  Paul  set 
forth  this  duty  of  obedience  in  his  own  instructions 
to  the  Romans.     "  Let  every  soul  be  subject  unto  the 
higher  powers.     For  there  is  no  power  but  of  God :  the 
powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God.     Whosoever  there- 
fore resisteth  the  power,  resisteth  the  ordinance  of  God, 
and  they  that  resist  shall  receive  to  themselves  damna- 
tion.    For  rulers  are  not  a  terror  to  good  works,  but 
to  the  evil.     Wilt  thou,  then,  not  be  afraid  of  the 
power?  do  that  which  is  good  and  thou  shalt  have 
praise  of  the  same.     For  he  is  the  minister  of  God  to 
thee  for  good.     But  if  thou  do  that  which  is  evil  be 
afraid;  for  he  beareth  not  the  sword  in  vain  :  for  he 
is  the  minister  of  God,  a  revenger  to  execute  wrath 
upon  him  that  doeth  evil.      Wherefore  ye  must  needs 
be  subject  not  only  for  wrath,  but  also  for  conscience' 


14 

sake."  (Rom.  xiii.  1 — 5.)  It  may  not  be  unsuitable 
to  adduce  alongside  of  this  injunction  of  Paul  the 
Apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  the  corresponding  injunc- 
tion of  Peter,  the  Apostle  to  the  circumcision : 
"  Submit  yourselves  to  every  ordinance  of  man  for  the 
Lord's  sake :  whether  it  be  to  the  king,  as  supreme,  or 
unto  governors,  as  unto  them  that  are  sent  by  him  for 
the  punishment  of  evil-doers,  and  for  the  praise  of 
them  that  do  well.  For  so  is  the  will  of  God,  that 
with  well-doing  ye  may  put  to  silence  the  ignorance  of 
foolish  men  :  As  free,  and  not  using  your  liberty  for  a 
cloak  of  maliciousness,  but  as  the  servants  of  God." 
(1  Peter  ii.  13—16.) 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  will  of  God — the 
highest  authority  in  the  universe.  He  commands 
obedience  to  civil  government;  because  it  is  his 
ordinance ;  because  its  purpose  and  operation  are 
beneficent  to  the  law-abiding.  Resistance  to  gov- 
ernment is  rebellion  against  God.  The  freedom 
of  the  Christian  is  not  to  be  perverted  into  a  cover 
and  false  pretense  of  conscience  for  wicked  deeds 
in  the  factious  resistance  of  lawful  authority.  The 
honour  of  the  gospel  is  promoted  by  that  submis- 
sion to  government  which  silences  the  slander  that 
Christians  are  turbulent.  Obedience  is  to  be  ren- 
dered not  merely  from  temporal  considerations  of 
hope  or  fear  of  the  human  authorities,  but  from 
conscience  acknowledging  the  authority  of  God, 
and  out  of  the  regard  which  His  servants  owe  to 
Him. 

There  was  sufficient  reason  in  the  circumstances 
of  the  times  when  these  precepts  were  uttered,  for 


15 

their  enactment  The  Christians  of  that  day  were 
liable,  both  for  religious  and  political  reasons,  and 
especially  because  of  their  exposure  to  persecu- 
tion, to  the  mistake  of  supposing  that  they  owed 
no  subjection  to  the  heathen  government  under 
which  they  lived ;  and  they  might  therefore  be 
tempted  to  offer  resistance  to  the  laws,  or  to  deny 
allegiance  to  the  public  authorities.  They  were 
often  accused  of  turbulence  and  sedition ;  and 
under  this  accusation  they  endured  much  suffer- 
ing. It  appears  to  have  been  the  design  of  the 
Apostles  to  remove  this  mistake,  while  they  en- 
joined such  submission  as  would  both  wipe  away 
this  reproach  and  tend  to  their  own  safety.  And 
in  this  view,  they  are  reminded  of  the  divine  ap- 
pointment of  civil  government,  and  its  beneficent 
design.  The  truth  of  this  doctrine  has  not  dimin- 
ished by  the  lapse  of  time  since  it  was  uttered ; 
but  is  as  applicable  to  us  as  it  was  to  the  primitive 
church.  It  belongs  to  the  dispensation  of  grace 
under  which  we  live,  and  obliges  us  to  yield  a 
religious  homage  to  the  laws  of  the  land. 

I  prefer  then  before  all  things  to  hold  up  the 
simple  testimony  of  the  Word  of  God,  in  the 
breadth  of  its  authority  and  power  over  our  con- 
sciences, as  that  which  obliges  us  to  allegiance. 

But,  while  this  is  the  case,  the  obligation  be- 
comes even  stronger,  when  we  consider  the  benefi- 
cent design  of  civil  government.  It  is  expressed 
by  the  declaration  that  the  constituted  authorities 
are  appointed  for  the  good  of  those  who  are  subject 
to  them.  And  although  the  history  of  the  world 


16 

presents  not  a  few  instances  of  misgovernment  and 
oppression,  through  the  ignorance,  the  selfishness 
and  the  caprice  of  rulers,  it  is  nevertheless  a  fact 
that  a   stable    government,    even   with   all   these 
drawbacks,  is  better  than  anarchy  ;  and  as  such  it 
is  the  will  of  God  that  it  should  exist.     And  it  is 
farther  true  that  the  true  interest  and  the  policy  of 
rulers  require  of  them  to  pay  regard  to  the  promo- 
tion of  the  peace  and  safety  of  their  citizens,  and 
that  the  authority  and  administration  of  the  laws 
does  in  the  main  promote  this  end.     There  never 
was  a  worse  government  than  that  of  the  Roman 
empire  at  the  very  moment  when  these  injunctions 
before  us  were   written.     And  yet  under  it,  we 
find  the  Christians  under  their  persecutions  appeal- 
ing for  protection  to  the  laws,  and  actually  obtain- 
ing that  protection.     Paul  asserted  his  rights  as  a 
citizen  before  the  tribunals,  and  more  than  once 
had    them   acknowledged.      And   when   he    was 
pressed  hard  by  the  persecutions  stirred  up  against 
him  by  the  Jews,  he  plead  his  cause   before  the 
heathen  magistrates,  and  at  length  appealed  unto 
Caesar,  and  vindicated  himself  before  the  bloody 
Nero  himself,  and   for  at  least  two  years,  was  pro- 
tected from  molestation,  with  liberty  to  exercise 
his  ministry  under  the  very  shadow  of  the  imperial 
throne.     And,    if  such  was  the  characteristic  of 
government  even  under  the   ancient  despotisms, 
how  much  more  is  this  the  fact  under  the  condi- 
tions to  which  government  has  been  brought,  in 
the   progress  of  society,  through  the  meliorating 
influence  of  the  gospel. 


The  dreadful  evils  which  would  result  from  the 
absence  or  imbecility  of  all  law  and  government, 
may  be  readily  imagined.  The  wicked  would 
desolate  society.  The  good  and  the  peaceful 
would  have  no  security  against  violence,  rapine, 
and  fraud.  There  was  once  a  period  in  Israel 
when  "  there  was  no  king,  and  every  man  did 
what  was  right  in  his  own  eyes."  And  this  is  the 
significant  record  which  explains  the  state  of 
things — a  series  of  the  most  atrocious  and  horrible 
events — abuse,  and  lawless  revenge,  civil  war  and 
extermination — flowing  out  of  the  absence  of  law 
and  government.  Who  could  live  in  such  a  state 
of  anarchy  ?  To  what  but  the  presence  and  influ- 
ence of  the  law,  do  we  owe  the  security  of  our 
personal  rights  ?  That  which  was  said  by  Tertul- 
lus  to  conciliate  the  Roman  governor  is  unques- 
tionably true  concerning  the  law :  "  By  it  we 
enjoy  great  quietness,  and  very  worthy  deeds  are 
done  unto  this  nation  by  its  providence."  It  is  the 
sword  that  the  magistrate  bears,  which  represses 
the  out-breaking  of  evil-doers,  whom  "  con- 
science" cannot  restrain,  but  whom  wrath  and 
terror  wielded  by  public  authority  make  afraid, 
and  thus  afford  us  a  quiet  and  peaceable  life. 

It  matters  not  for  the  form  under  which  govern- 
ment exists,  or  even  how  it  came  into  power,  God 
has  willed  that  there  shall  be  government,  and 
man  must  have  it.  It  presides,  of  indispensable 
necessity,  in  the  family,  and  over  every  gradation 
of  tribes  and  states.  In  the  state,  it  has  its  birth 
out  of  the  fact  that  men  live  together,  under  cer- 
2 


18 

tain  instincts  and  wants  which  prompt  them  to 
express  in  laws,  those  rules  of  social  life  which 
their  conscious  necessities  suggest  and  demand. 
These  laws  are  the  expression  of  their  sense  of 
what  is  right  and  needful  for  their  living  together 
in  harmony  and  safety.  And  this  fact  is  so  inde- 
structible that  if  our  governments  were  all  over- 
thrown to-day,  their  constitutions,  statutes,  and 
•functionaries  exterminated,  and  not  a  vestige  of 
their  existence  left,  the  people  would  be  impelled 
to  come  together  to-morrow,  to  construct  other 
governments.  Three  years  ago,  France  drove 
away  her  king  of  the  barricades,  as  eighteen  years 
before  she  drove  out  his  predecessor ;  in  each  case 
destroying  the  very  fundamental  constitutions  of 
her  government ;  and  then,  under  the  impulse  of 
her  necessities,  as  much  as  of  her  taste,  set  herself 
to  construct  another,  because  she  could  not  live 
without  it.  Constitutions  do  not  create  states,  but 
states  make  constitutions,  and  exist  before  them. 
The  pilgrim  fathers  were  a  state  before  they  were 
landed  on  Plymouth  Rock,  and  even  before  they 
framed  their  constitution  in  the  cabin  of  the  May- 
flower. Their  need  of  law  gave  birth  to  the  forms 
of  law.  And  it  was  the  need  of  the  constitution 
under  which  these  states  are  united  as  one  nation, 
which  prompted  them  to  adopt  it  sixty  years  ago ; 
and  under  its  provisions  we  enjoy  the  blessings  it 
was  designed  to  secure;  As  soon  as  communities 
«xist,  they  are  under  law,  written  or  unwritten, 
despotic  or  free,  of  force  or  of  consent.  And  they 
must  have  it,  or  fall  apart  to  ruin. 


19 

There  may  be,  and  there  are,  greater  or  less  de- 
grees of  approximation  to  perfection,* — for  the  best 
is  but  an  approximation  to  perfection,  in  human 
governments, — whether  we  regard  the  laws  them- 
selves, or  their  administration. 

But  there  is  always  this  advantage  in  being  under 
law,  that  it  is  the  only  security  for  liberty.  It  de- 
fines its  conditions,  and  is  ever  present,  applicable 
and  authoritative.  By  its  impartiality,  it  has  no 
respect  of  persons ;  and  by  its  permanency  it  is  as 
vigorous  to-day  as  it  was  yesterday,  and  at  the  end 
of  a  thousand  years  its  unrepealed  authority  is  still 
fresh  and  unexhausted.  It  is  the  guardian  of  right 
and  the  tribunal  of  universal  appeal.f  Well  pro- 
nounced was  that  immortal  eulogium  of  Hooker,  in 
which  he  sums  up  his  elaborate  exposition  of  law 

*  See  Note,  page  20. 

•f  "  They  who  make  and  those  who  administer  law,  should  of 
course  be  bound  by  it  indiscriminately  with  the  rest  of  the  people. 
It  is  the  law,  and  not  men,  who  ought  to  rule.  « Law,'  says  Plu- 
tarch, '  is  queen  over  mortals  and  immortals.'  The  edict  of  1499, 
of  Louis  XII.  is  a  rare  instance  of  magnanimity  in  a  prince  pos- 
sessing the  absolute  disposal  of  the  laws.  '  The  law  only,'  says 
he,  '  is  to  be  obeyed,  notwithstanding  any  orders  to  the  contrary 
which  importunity  may  elicit  from  the  monarch.'  " — Ed.  Encycl. 
(LAW.) 

"  The  prince  ought  to  submit  to  the  laws.  We  find  this  truth 
established  in  a  piece  published  by  order  of  Louis  XIV.  one  of  the 
worst  absolute  princes  that  ever  reigned  in  Europe.  '  Let  it  not 
be  said  that  the  sovereign  is  not  subject  to  the  laws  of  his  state, 
since  the  contrary  proposition  is  one  of  the  truths  of  the  laws  of 
nations,  which  flattery  has  sometimes  attacked,  and  which  good 
princes  have  always  defended  as  a  tutelar  divinity  of  their  state*.'  " 
—  Vattel,  chapter  iv. 


20 

in  general :  "  Wherefore  that  here  we  may  briefly 
end :  of  law  there  can  be  no  less  acknowledged, 
than  that  her  seat  is  the  bosom  of  God,  her  voice 
the  harmony  of  the  world ;  all  things  in  heaven 
and  earth  do  her  homage,  the  very  least  as  feeling 
her  care,  and  the  greatest  as  not  exempted  from 
her  power ;  both  angels  and  men  and  creatures  of 
what  condition  soever,  though  each  in  different 
sort  and  manner,  yet  all  with  uniform  consent,  ad- 
miring her  as  the  mother  of  their  peace  and  joy." 
(Eccl.  Pol.,  Bk.  I.) 

And  well  has  the  Apostle  said  in  view  of  all  this 
beneficence  which  is  ever  intended  by  all  the  ordi- 
nances of  God,  "  Let  every  soul  be  subject  unto 
the  higher  powers,  *  *  for  the  powers  that  be 
are  ordained  of  God."  For  it  "  is  of  Him  that 
kings  reign  and  princes  decree  justice."  This  is 
the  will  of  God. 

And  with  what  strength  does  this  truth  enforce 
upon  us  the  obligation  of  law.  The  Constitution, 
or  Supreme  Law  of  the  land  is  just  what  the  peo- 
ple have  made  it.*  And  the  laws  enacted  under 
it  are  enacted  by  the  popular  will  expressed 
through  their  representatives.  They  have  there- 
fore the  highest  inducement  and  advantage  for 

*  "  The  perfection  of  a  state,  and  its  aptitude  to  attain  the  ends 
of  society,  must  then  depend  on  its  constitution ;  consequently  the 
most  important  concern  of  a  nation  that  forms  a  political  society, 
and  its  first  and  most  essential  duty  towards  itself,  is  to  choose 
the  best  constitution  possible  and  that  most  suitable  to  its  circum- 
stances. When  it  makes  this  choice,  it  lays  the  foundation  of  its 
own  preservation,  safety,  perfection  and  happiness.  It  cannot 
take  too  much  care  in  placing  these  on  a  solid  basis.1' — Vattel, 
chap.  iv. 


21 

making  such  laws  as  promote  true  liberty  and  the 
public  good.  While,  if  a  law  is  found  by  its  ope- 
ration to  be  adverse  to  these  ends,  it  is  sure, 
sooner  or  later,  to  be  repealed.  Speaking  of  the 
American  government,  an  able  foreign  writer*  has 
well  said,  "  It  is  founded  neither  on  force  nor 
fraud,  and  seeks  not  therefore  to  ally  itself  with 
ignorance.  Based  upon  the  principles  of  right  and 
justice,  it  seeks  to  league  itself  with  intelligence 
and  virtue.  Its  roots  lie  deep  in  the  popular  will, 
and  in  the  popular  sympathies  is  the  chief  source 
of  its  strength."  A  government  on  such  founda- 
tions has  a  double  claim  on  the  respect  and  loyalty 
of  the  citizen.  On  the  one  hand,  because  its  laws 
are  virtually  made  by  the  people ;  and  on  the 
other  hand  because  its  strength  and  beneficence 
rest  on  the  support  which  the  people  themselves 
give  to  the  law.  And  it  is  precisely  here,  that 
conscience  is  called  upon  not  to  resist,  but  to  en- 
force the  subjection  of  every  soul,  and  to  strengthen 
the  authority  of  the  laws.  The  man  that  refuses 
submission  and  resists  the  power,  in  one  case,  is 
doing  that  which  tends  to  weaken  the  authority  of 
government,  in  all  other  cases,  and  thus  to  bring 
it  into  contempt  and  to  prostrate  its  conservative 
power  as  an  agency  for  the  public  good.  And  he 
that  resists  the  law,  is  resisting  the  guardian  of  his 
own  rights,  and  aiming  a  blow  against  the  com- 
monwealth ;|  and  is  it  not  a  just  conclusion  that 
he  is  resisting  God  ? 

*  Alexander  Mackay. 

t "  To  attack  the  constitution  of  the  state,  and  to  violate  ita 
laws,  is  a  capital  crime  against  society." — Vattel,  chap.  iv. 


22 

But,  here  it  may  be  asked,  are  we  absolutely 
bound  to  implicit  approval  and  unquestioning  obe- 
dience ?  Are  governments  infallible  ?  And  is 
there  no  limit  to  their  authority  ?  If  their  enact- 
ments are  in  conflict  with  the  higher  law  of  God, 
is  that  law  abrogated  and  are  we  discharged  from 
obedience  to  it  by  the  injunction  to  obey  mag- 
istrates ? 

The  answer  to  these  inquires  is  simple  and  brief. 
We  answer,  No !  About  this,  there  can  be  no 
doubt,  with  the  Bible  in  our  hands;  and  scripture 
is  to  be  compared  with  scripture,  for  the  true  un- 
derstanding of  its  instructions. 

We  hear  much  of  late  about  a  "  higher  law." 
And  this  phrase,  which  is  by  no  means  a  new 
one,  has,  I  think,  been  abused,  on  the  one  hand, 
to  cover  resistance  to  the  due  authority  of  law, 
and  on  the  other  hand,  where  it  has  been  con- 
temptuously and  sneeringly  disparaged,  as  if  there 
were  no  higher  law  than  the  law  of  the  land. 

When  the  majesty  of  the  constitution,  (for 
example,)  has  been  impugned,  it  has  been  defended 
by  a  reference  to  its  obligation  as  a  compact,  and 
again  by  a  reference  to  the  divine  injunction  which 
requires  subjection  to  government.  And  yet,  while 
these  arguments  are  of  great  force,  beyond  them 
both,  the  conscience  yields  a  stronger  support  to 
law,  on  the  ground  of  its  equity ;  and  if  that  equity 
is  clearly  demonstrated,  then  we  have  a  three-fold 
cord  which  is  not  easily  broken,  to  oblige  us  to 
obey  it.  But  if  on  the  other  hand,  an  enlightened 
conscience  discerns  that  human  law  is  in  flagrant 


23 

opposition  to  the  divine  law,  there  is  surely  no 
obligation  to  approve  it  or  even  to  obey  it.  I  am 
not  stating  a  case, — but  a  principle.  The  principle 
is  one  thing,  and  it  may  be  very  clear.  The  point 
of  its  application  is  another  thing,  and  it  is  some- 
times obscure.  It  is  is  one  thing  to  assert  the 
eternal  supremacy  of  the  higher  law  of  God,  and 
quite  another  thing  to  prove  that  a  law  of  the  civil 
government  is  in  conflict  with  it.  But  the  princi- 
ple is  impregnable  which  asserts  that  if  the  law 
framed  by  man  conflicts  with  the  law  ordained  by 
God,  there  is  no  power  on  earth,  that  can  oblige  a 
man  to  approve  it,  or  obey  it.  The  divine  right 
of  kings  to  govern  wrong  has  long  since  been 
exploded.  The  day  has  gone  by,  when  the  obli- 
gation of  subjects  to  yield  implicit  faith  and 
obedience  to  dogmas  and  rites  imposed  by  crowns 
and  parliaments  was  upheld  even  by  the  altar. 
That  day  has  gone  by.  When  the  three  Hebrew 
youths  were  enjoined  to  worship  a  golden  idol ; 
when  Daniel  was  forbidden  to  pray  to  his  God ; 
when  the  apostles  were  ordered  to  desist  from 
preaching  the  gospel,  they  disobeyed  the  injunc- 
tions, and  justified  themselves  by  pleading  that 
they  ought  to  obey  God  rather  than  man.  And 
even  where  oaths  and  compacts  have  been  impro- 
perly made,  they  are  not  binding.  A  man  may 
swear  to  his  own  hurt, — to  his  pecuniary  loss, — 
and  he  is  bound  by  the  compact.*  But  if  he  has 
unadvisedly  bound  himself  to  do  an  immoral  thing, 
he  is  not  obliged.  The  law  of  God  had  a  provision, 
(Lev.  v.  4,)  for  his  expiation  as  a  sinner  in  such  a 

*  Ps.  xv.  4.  and  xxiv.  4. 


24 

case,  because  he  ought  not  to  have  sworn  to  do  a 
wrong  thing ;  but  it  did  not  hold  him  to  the 
commission  of  a  crime  for  his  oath's  sake,  but  rather 
absolved  him  with  solemn  rites.  And  here  was 
the  fault  of  Herod,  that  when  he  had  rashly  sworn 
to  grant  anything  that  the  daughter  of  Herodias 
chose  to  ask,  he  violated  a  higher  known  obliga- 
tion, and  put  John  the  Baptist  to  death  "  for  his 
oath's  sake." 

But  while  this  principle  is  clear,  that  God  is 
always  to  be  obeyed  rather  than  men, — it  is  also 
to  be  observed  that  the  will  of  God  in  the  particu- 
lar case,  must  be  clearly  expressed.  It  is  not 
competent  for  men  to  assume  that  their  own  no- 
tions of  right  and  wrong,  or  their  own  interpretation 
of  a  divine  precept,  irrespective  of  all  other  con- 
siderations, are  to  be  plead  as  the  form  in  which 
the  will  of  God  has  been  expressed,  and  to  claim 
supremacy  for  these  over  the  law.  Men  have 
sometimes  obstinately  done  things  for  what  they 
fanatically  called  "  conscience'  sake,"  but  for 
which  they  deserved  to  be  soundly  whipped. 
When  conscience  demands  its  franehisements  it 
must  be  enlightened  by  the  word  of  God,  to  justify 
its  own  decisions  even  at  His  bar.  It  is  true  that 
there  are  dictates  of  conscience  which  no  human 
law  has  a  right  to  oppress.  In  the  concerns  of  the 
soul,  in  its  profession  of  faith,  in  its  worship,  and  in 
its  relation  to  the  moral  law  of  God,  the  conscience 
has  its  own  sphere,  and  ought  to  be  left  free  from  the 
commandments  of  men;  so  that  while  we  render 
unto  Caesar  the  things  that  be  Caesar's,  we  may  ren- 
der unto  God  the  things  which  are  God's.  And  it 


25 

is  in  these  very  points  that  the  instances  of  the  three 
Hebrews,  of  Daniel,  and  of  the  Apostles,  shed  light 
as  to  the  limits  of  the  obligation  to  obey  human  law. 
And  herein  the  law  of  this  land  has  fully  exonerated 
all  men,  of  whatever  creed,  from  all  oppression  of 
the  emphatic  "  rights  of  conscience." 

But  in  regard  to  the  obligations  of  the  citizen 
as  they  are  specified  by  the  law,  it  may  be  freely 
admitted  that  in  some  cases,  the  law  requires  him 
to  do  or  to  refrain  from  a  certain  thing,  which  to 
him,  with  the  best  light  he  can  obtain,  appears  to 
be  in  conflict  with  the  lawT  of  God.  What  is  his 
duty  in  such  a  case  ?  It  becomes  him  to  reflect 
that  the  law  of  the  land  is  enacted  by  the  proper 
authority ;  that  it  is  approved  by  the  people ;  that 
there  is  a  fair  presumption  in  favour  of  its  equity, 
for  those  of  the  opposite  view  have  as  great  an 
interest  in  doing  right,  and  as  great  ability  to 
understand  the  right,  as  himself;  and  farther,  that 
all  human  laws  are  liable  to  imperfection,  even 
when  they  are  fairly  and  honestly  enacted  for  the 
public  good  ; — and  farther  still,  that  in  view  of  the 
benignant  design  of  the  laws  as  a  whole,  and  the 
importance  of  preserving  them  in  full  authority,  if 
after  all,  he  is  not  fully  prepared  to  adopt  and 
approve  it,  he  is  at  all  events  obliged  to  submit  to 
it,  by  bearing  its  penalties  for  simple  disobedience ; 
as  do  the  members  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  who 
being  conscientiously  opposed  to  bearing  arms,  are 
subjected  to  fines  for  their  refusal  to  do  so,  and 
peaceably  and  unresistingly  submit  to  imprison- 
ment or  to  distraint  of  goods.  Convictions  cannot 


26 

be  forced ;  neither  on  the  other  hand  can  they  be 
allowed  to  set  at  naught  the  authority  of  the  law. 
A  man's  private  judgment  may  disapprove  a  public 
law,  but  he  cannot  expect  that  the  law  should 
yield  up  its  own  existence,  or  permit  itself  to  be 
set  at  naught,  or  resisted,  in  deference  to  his  pri- 
vate opinion. 

And  if,  unhappily,  the  law  require  or  forbid  him 
to  act  contrary  to  his  conscience,  how  is  he  to 
treat  it.  He  cannot  obey  it ;  has  he  a  right  there- 
fore to  resist  it  with  force  and  arms  ?  Let  us  see 
how  the  Apostles  acted  in  such  a  case.  Did  they 
ever  openly  resist  the  law  ?  They  appealed  at 
times  to  the  law  against  the  injustice  of  their  per- 
secutors and  against  the  oppression  of  magistrates. 
And  it  ought  never  to  be  forgotten  in  this  argument, 
that  they  as  often  suffered  contrary  to  law,  as  under 
it.  Even  then,  as  now, — even  now  as  then — it 
was  not  an  unusual  thing  for  the  law  itself  to  be 
better  and  wiser  than  its  officers.  But,  when  all 
the  force  of  human  power  invaded  their  rights, 
and  contemned  their  conscientious  scruples, — even 
when  they  were  beaten  and  imprisoned,  did  they 
offer  violent  resistance,  or  conspire  against  the 
authorities  ?  did  they  attempt  their  rescue  with 
force,  or  counsel  others  to  offer  such  resistance 
either  for  their  own  defence  or  that  of  anybody 
else  ?  They  did  none  of  these  things.  They 
looked  to  the  law  for  redress ;  and  when  it  gave 
them  no  redress,  they  bore  what  the  law  inflicted. 
And  in  this  thing  they  are  an  example  to  us ;  and 
their  own  course  sheds  light  upon  the  meaning  of 


27 

the  precepts  they  have  laid  down  for  the  regula- 
tion of  our  conduct  in  similar  circumstances.  But 
how  different  is  all  this  from  the  course  which  has 
been  pursued,  and  the  counsels  which  have  been 
given,  in  our  own  day,  by  men  professing  godli- 
ness ! 

Much  has  been  said,  and  well  said,  of  late, 
respecting  the  right  of  the  people,  under  certain 
circumstances,  to  revolutionize  or  overthrow  a 
government,  when  it  becomes  destructive  of  the 
ends  for  which  it  was  established,  and  of  the  con- 
ditions under  which  revolution  may  be  undertaken. 
The  very  government  and  nation  to  which  we  owe 
allegiance,  exists  under  that  right  successfully  vin- 
dicated against  the  usurpations  of  the  power  which 
was  once  supreme  over  this  people.  But  need  I 
say  that  here  was  a  clear  case  for  revolution. 

After  ten  years  of  urgent,  but  respectful  and 
even  affectionate  and  loyal  remonstrance,  against 
acts  of  tyranny  that  oppressed  the  rights  and  hap- 
piness of  the  whole  country,  when,  at  length,  it 
became  evident  that  these  outrages  were  to  be 
persisted  in  without  hope  of  relief  or  relaxation, 
then  it  was  that  the  colonies  united  in  the  formal 
declaration  of  the  wrongs  by  which  their  liberties 
were  invaded,  and  as  formally  and  with  solemn 
appeal  to  Heaven,  declared  their  entire  and  per- 
petual independence  of  the  British  crown,  and 
took  up  arms  to  vindicate  it.  The  American  revo- 
lution was  justified  by  the  true  plea  that  the  parent 
government  had  usurped  the  rights  secured  to  the 
colonies,  and  by  the  fact  that  the  whole  people 


28 

were  united  for  the  abolition  of  the  usurping  gov- 
ernment, and  successfully  accomplished  it.  These 
two  facts  operating  together  present  a  state  of  case 
entirely  different  from  any  now  existing  among  us, 
to  which  it  might  be  attempted  to  apply  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  American  revolution.  That  is  no 
precedent  for  the  factious  and  violent  resistance  of  a 
portion*  of  the  people  to  a  particular  law,  while 
professing  to  obey  all  other  laws  of  the  same  gov<- 
eminent,  and  claiming  their  protection.  This  is 
rebellion,  without  any  justification ;  and  is  a  vio- 
lation of  the  ordinance  of  God,  in  the  form  which 
I  believe  the  Apostle  had  in  his  mind.  Neither  is 
it  any  precedent  even  for  organizing  a  revolution 
on  the  broader  ground  and  higher  scale  of  over- 
throwing the  government,  if  such  were  the  form  of 
the  attempt  to  resist  injustice  and  wrong  attempted 
by  our  rulers.  For  in  considering  the  question  of 
our  subordination  to  government,  we  must  revert 
again  in  this  connection  to  the  kind  of  government 
we  are  actually  under.  It  is  a  government  that 
cannot  secure  us  the  blessings  of  liberty  except  by 
the  loyalty  of  the  governed.  If  then  its  laws  be 
unjust  or  unconstitutional, — if  the  courts  (whose 
business  it  is,  by  the  way,  and  not  yours  or  mine 
to  decide  that  point)  afford  no  redress, — if  peti- 

*  "  If  any  nation  is  dissatisfied  with  the  public  administration  it 
may  apply  the  necessary  remedies  and  reform  the  government  ^ 
But  observe,  I  say,  the  nation  ;  for  I  am  very  far  from  meaning 
to  authorise  a  few  malcontents,  or  incendiaries,  to  give  disturb- 
ance to  their  governors,  by  exciting  murmurs  and  seditions." — 
Vattel,  chap.  iv. 


29 

tion  and  remonstrance  procure  no  repeal — there  is 
still  in  the  hands  of  the  people  a  remedy  in  the  last 
resort,  very  unlike  stirring  up  insurrection  and 
levying  war.  Full  as  effective,  and  far  more  to  be 
chosen,  while  it  has  all  the  advantage  of  being 
lawful  before  both  God  and  man,  is  the  simple 
resort  to  the  ballot-box.  That  is  the  only  arena 
on  which  the  generous  contention  for  supremacy 
is  to  be  waged  by  us ;  that  is  the  only  field  where 
the  Christian  American  Citizen  should  ever  strive 
to  revolutionize  his  government.  This  is  the  right 
and  the  privilege  of  all,  and  we  need  no  other 
resource.  It  is  the  safe-guard  against  unfaithful 
rulers,  and  it  is  the  easy  and  peaceful  expedient  of 
accomplishing  every  year  those  revolutions,  which 
in  other  lands,  are  attempted  by  insurrection  and 
bloodshed.  Long  may  it  be  ere  any  other  resort 
shall  be  needed  by  our  people.  And  never  will  it 
lose  its  potency  while  our  people  themselves 
jealously  guard  and  loyally  uphold  the  majesty  of 
the  law. 

But,  after  the  statement  of  these  principles,  there 
rises  up  still  the  question,  Is  the  particular  law 
which  has  occasioned  all  this  excitement  a  just 
law? 

This  question  is  one  on  which  I  should  not  deem 
it  necessary  to  enter,  at  all,  were  it  not  for  the 
atrocious  counsels  which  have  openly  inculcated 
resistance  with  violence  and  bloodshed ;  and  be- 
cause farther,  the  opposition  to  this  law  goes  be- 
yond it,  to  assail  the  provision  in  the  constitution 
which  it  was  enacted  to  carry  into  effect,  as  a  pro- 
vision in  conflict  with  the  higher  law  of  God. 


30 

In  considering  this  question,  I  propose  to  offer 
the  mere  outline  of  an  argument. 

The  question  has  two  aspects :  First,  is  the  fugi- 
tive slave  law  constitutional  ?  That  is  an  inquiry 
with  which  I  have  nothing  to  do,  in  this  place  : 
although  it  would  seem  as  if  it  required  no  great 
logical  or  legal  acumen  to  settle  it.  But  neither 
your  opinion  nor  mine  can  settle  it.  It  can  be  de- 
termined properly,  effectively  and  finally,  by  the 
judiciary  alone.  •  I  have  no  occasion  to  invade 
their  high  prerogative.  The  appeal  to  the  tribunal 
is  open  to  us  all,  on  every  point  at  which  any  citi- 
zen deems  his  constitutional  rights  invaded,  or  his 
conscience  oppressed.* 

But  the  real,  moral  question  for  us  is  that  which 
relates  to  the  equity  of  the  constitution  itself.  Is 
it  asked  then,  secondly,  whether  the  constitutional 
provision  respecting  the  delivery  of  fugitive  slaves, 
which  is  the  real  point  of  attack,  is  or  is  not  in 
conflict  with  the  scriptures  ?  The  prominent 
argument  against  this  provision,  and  against  the 
law  enforcing  it,  is  derived  from  the  well-known 
passage  in  Deuteronomy,  xxiii.  15,  16  :  "  Thou 
shalt  not  deliver  unto  his  master  the  servant  which 
is  escaped  from  his  master  unto  thee :  He  shall 
dwell  with  thee,  even  among  you,  in  that  place 
which  he  shall  choose,  in  one  of  thy  gates,  where 
it  liketh  him  best :  thou  shalt  not  oppress  him." 
Now,  on  this  passage,  I  observe, 
1.  Is  this  precept  binding  on  us  at  all  ?  It  was 

*  "  See  Acts  xix.  38 — 40,  for  an  example  of  most  sensible  ad- 
vice. 


31 

a  part  of  the  municipal  law  of  the  Jews,  which 
was  confessedly  temporary.  Yet,  as  it  is  alleged 
that  it  involves  a  great  moral  principle  for  all  time, 
let  us  consider  it  as  such  ;  and  then, 

2.  It  is  manifest,  from  its  very  terms,  that  it 
does  not  refer  to  the  escape  of  a  slave  from  one 
tribe  of  Israel  to  another, — as  from  Reuben  to 
Naphtali,  or  from  Zebulon  to  Judah, — but  to  the 
slave  who  had  escaped  from  the  neighbouring 
heathen  nations  to  the  sanctuary  of  the  land  of 
Israel,  where  he  might  be  instructed  in  the  true 
religion,  and  come  to  a  participation  of  the  privi- 
leges of  the  chosen  people.  This  is  no  interpre- 
tation newly  invented  to  meet  a  particular  emer- 
gency ;  but  it  is  borne  to  us  on  the  whole  current 
of  calm,  abstract  exposition  and  commentary  that 
has  flowed  down  to  us  from  other  days.*  But 

*  The  following  are  but  specimens  taken  from  such  authors  as 
are  most  accessible  while  I  am  writing. 

"  That  is,  a  servant  who  left  an  idolatrous  master  that  he  might 
join  himself  to  God  and  to  his  people.  In  any  other  case,  it 
would  have  been  injustice  to  have  harboured  the  run-a-way." — 
Adam  Clarke. 

"  A  slave  who  had  fled  from  another  nation  and  sought  a  refusre 

o  o 

among  the  Hebrews,  was  to  be  received  and  treated  with  kind- 
ness, and  not  to  be  forcibly  returned  back  again." — Jahn's  Ar* 
cJiceol.  §  171. 

"  If  a  slave  of  another  nation  fled  to  the  Hebrews,  he  was  to  be 
received  hospitably,  and  on  no  account  to  be  given  up  to  his 
master." — Horne,  Introd. 

"  We  cannot  suppose,  that  this  law  required  the  Israelites  to 
entertain  slaves,  who  had  robbed  their  masters,  or  left  their 
service  without  cause  ;  but  such  only  as  were  cruelly  treated  and 
fled  to  them  for  protection,  especially  from  the  neighbouring  na- 


32 

whatever  may  have  been  the  intent  of  the  precept, 
the  interpretation  which  restricts  it  to  cases  of 
escape  from  the  oppressive  and  idolatrous  heathen, 
is  justified  by  the  unquestionable  fact,  that  the 
Divine  Lawgiver,  while  He  forbade  the  "  bond- 
age" of  an  Israelite,  (Leviticus  xxv.  39 — 43,)  did,  in 
specific  contrast  with  the  limited  servitude  of  an 

lions.  To  such  they  were  commanded  to  afford  shelter,  and 
show  great  kindness ;  both  in  order  to  recommend  their  religion, 
and  to  give  them  an  opportunity  of  learning  it." — Scott. 

"  The  land  of  Israel  is  here  made  a  sanctuary  or  city  of  refuge, 
for  servants  that  were  wronged  and  abused  by  their  masters,  and 
fled  thither  for  shelter  from  the  neighbouring  countries.  Wo 
cannot  suppose  that  they  were  hereby  obliged  to  give  entertain- 
ment to  all  the  unprincipled  men  that  ran  from  service  ;  Israel 
aeeded  not,  (as  Rome  at  first  did)  to  be  thus  peopled." — Henry. 

"  The  Hebrew  doctors  understand  this  of  a  servant  of  another 
nation  who  was  become  a  Jew.  Whom  his  master,  if  he  went  to 
dwell  out  of  Judea,  might  not  carry  along  with  him  against  his 
will ;  and  if  he  fled  from  him,  when  he  had  carried  him,  he  might 
not  be  delivered  to  him,  but  suffered  to  dwell  in  the  land  of 
Israel.  Which  they  understand  also  of  a  servant  that  fled  from 
his  master  out  of  any  of  the  countries  of  the  gentiles  into  the  land 
of  Israel ;  which  was  to  be  a  safe  refuge  to  him,  (see  Selden,  lib. 
vi.  De  Jure  Nat.  et  Gent,  juxta  Discipl.  Hebr.  cap.  8,  p.  711.) 
(a.) — Patrick. 

(a)  Selden  observes  : — "  Neque  licuit  domino  servum  invitum  in 
alienas  terras  comitem  sibi  adhibere,  nee  fugitivum  inde,  e  terra 
sancta,  si  Judaismum  susceperat,  reducere.  Sic  intelligunt  illud 
legis,  Non  trades  servum  domino  suo  qui  apud  te  eripi  cupit  a 
domino  suo,  etc.  (Deut.  xxiii.  15.)  Qui  locus  etiam  de  servo 
qui  a  domino  gentili  in  terram  Israeliticam,  fugerat,  capitur. 
Tutum  nempe  erat  servo  ejusmodi  terra  ilia  perfugium.  Unde 
Onkclos  ibi,  Non  trades  servum  gentium  in  manum  domini  ejus. 
Ex  hisce  pendere  videtur  quod  apud  Josephum  notatur,  (lib.  xvi. 
cap.  i.) 


33 

Israelite,  expressly  permit  the  Israelites  to  hold  in 
perpetual  bondage  slaves  who  were  not  of  the 
children  of  Israel.  "  Both  thy  bondmen  and  thy 
bondmaids,  which  thou  shalt  have,  shall  be  of  the 
heathen  that  are  round  about  you ;  of  them  shall 
ye  buy  bondmen  and  bondmaids.  Moreover,  of 
the  children  of  the  strangers  that  do  sojourn  among 
you,  of  them  shall  ye  buy,  and  of  their  families  that 
are  with  you,  which  they  begat  in  your  land,  and 
they  shall  be  your  possession.  And  ye  shall  take 
them  as  an  inheritance  for  your  children  after  you, 
to  inherit  them  for  a  possession ;  they  shall  be 
your  bondmen  forever:*  but  over  your  brethren 
the  children  of  Israel,  ye  shall  not  rule  one  over 
another  with  rigour."  (Leviticus,  xxv.  44 — 46.) 
Now,  if  God  allowed  this  relation  to  exist  in  Israel, 
by  express  law, — and  I  may  add,  if  He  regulated 
it, — if  He  recognized  it  in  the  fourth  command- 
ment, and  especially,  in  the  tenth  commandment 

The  whole  policy  of  the  law  seems  to  have  been  to  invite 
foreigners  to  become  Israelites,  while  the  extradition  of  the  fugi- 
tive was  forbidden  because  it  sent  him  back  to  idolatry.  And  in 
this  partly,  if  not  entirely,  consisted  the  heinousness  of  the  offense 
of  man-stealing,  i.  e.  the  abduction  of  a  free-born  Israelite,  (see 
Note  to  page  39,)  who  could  not  easily  have  been  made,  or  sold 
as,  a  slave,  in  Israel,  but  for  the  purpose  of  sending  him  out  of  the 
land,  and  of  course  to  servitude  among  the  heathen.  Hence  the 
prohibition,  alleged  by  Selden,  restraining  the  master  of  a  slave 
from  removing  him  out  of  the  land.  The  whole  chapter  from 
which  I  have  quoted  is  very  instructive.  See  Selden  de  jure. 
lib.  vi.  cap.  8.  p.  645.  (Opera  omnia ;  vol.  i.  Londini,  1726.) 

*  "  Ye  shall  serve  yourselves  with  them." — Margin, 

3 


34 

recognized  the  servant  as  the  property  of  his  mas- 
ter,— can  it  be  presumed  for  a  moment  that  the 
Divine  Lawgiver  did,  in  the  very  same  breath,  in- 
tend to  sanction  the  escape  of  the  same  bond-slave  by 
forbidding  the  fugitive  to  be  delivered  up  ?  It  is 
not  my  business  here,  either  to  approve  or  con- 
demn slavery  as  it  exists  in  America.  That  is  not 
the  question  under  discussion.  But,  I  am  meeting 
the  argument,  fetched  from  the  law  of  Israel,  for 
the  emancipation  of  fugitives,  by  confronting  with 
it  the  plain  and  unquestionable  fact,  which  nulli- 
fies that  argument,  viz.,  that  slavery  was  a  "  do- 
mestic institution"  of  the  Israelites,  actually  recog- 
nized and  allowed  by  the  God  of  Israel.  Did  He, 
by  the  same  law,  both  permit  slavery,  and  enjoin 
the  emancipation  of  the  fugitive  ?  The  idea  is 
absurd,  and  the  assertion  makes  Jehovah  contra- 
dict himself. 

And,  even  in  regard  to  fugitives  from  the 
heathen,  it  has  been  well  observed,  that  the  pre- 
cept forbidding  their  extradition,  could  not  have 
been  designed  to  make  the  land  of  Israel  a  refuge 
for  all  the  vicious  and  "  unprincipled  who  might 
run  from  service."*  There  was  this  stinging  point 
of  insult  in  the  churlishness  of  Nabal  toward  David, 
that  when  he  reproached  him,  saying,  "  There  be 
many  servants  now-a-days  that  break  away  every 
one  from  his  master,"  he  charged  him  with  being 
a  mere  worthless  runaaway  slave,  whom  he  ought 
not  to  harbour. 

3.  But  there  is  some  light  reflected  upon  this 

*  Matthew  Henry. 


35 

question  from  the  actual  cases  that  are  on  record 
in  the  sacred  scriptures.  These,  so  far  as  I  can  dis- 
cover, are  only  three.  The  first  is  that  of  Hagar, 
the  Egyptian,  the  bond- woman  of  Abraham,  whom, 
when  for  her  insolent  contempt  of  her  mistress, 
Sarah  dealt  hardly  with  her,  and  she  fled  from  her 
face  into  the  wilderness,  the  angel  of  the  Lord  that 
found  her  there,  commanded,  "  Return  to  thy  mis- 
tress, and  submit  thyself  under  her  hands.  (Gene- 
sis, xvi.) 

The  second  is  the  case  of  the  Egyptian,  the 
Amalekite's  servant,  who  having  fallen  sick  had 
been  abandoned  by  his  master  to  perish,  during 
the  retreat  of  the  Amalekites  after  invading  and 
burning  Ziklag.  Being  found  by  David  in  his 
search  of  the  enemy,  and  relieved,  he  was  desired 
to  point  out  the  way  taken  by  the  marauders ;  he 
promised  so  to  do,  taking  an  oath  from  David  that 
he  would  neither  kill  him,  nor  deliver  him  to  his 
master.  In  this  case  the  refusal  to  deliver  him  to 
his  master  was  eminently  proper.  His  master  was 
not  only  of  the  heathen,  to  whom  the  law  we  are 
examining  forbade  his  extradition,  but  a  public 
enemy  in  actual  war,  a  marauder  and  an  outlaw ; 
and  moreover,  by  his  brutal  abandonment  of  his 
sick  servant  he  had  forfeited  all  claim  upon  him. 
Every  circumstance  combined  to  give  the  poor 
wretch  a  claim  to  refuge  and  life  at  the  hands  of 
his  preserver.  (I  Samuel,  xxx.) 

The  third  is  the  striking  and  instructive  case  of 
Onesimus,  the  runaway  slave  of  Philemon  the 
friend  of  the  Apostle  Paul.  Finding  out  the 


36 

Apostle  at  Rome,  Onesimus  was  brought  to  re- 
pentance of  his  evil  ways,  and  was  sent  back  by 
Paul  to  his  master,  with  a  letter,  (Epistle  to  Phile- 
mon,) in  which  Philemon  is  entreated  to  overlook 
his  fault,  and  to  receive  him  now  as  a  brother  be- 
loved. Now  here,  we  see  at  least  one  instance  to 
prove  that  a  slaveholder  may  be  a  good  man,  and 
that  a  slave  may  run  away  without  just  cause  from 
a  'good  master.  But  we  see  farther  the  more  in- 
structive fact,  that  the  Apostle  fully  acknowledges 
all  the  rights  of  the  master  and  returns  to  him  his 
servant,  even  when  he  was  inclined  to  retain  him 
near  himself  (vs.  12 — 14.)  Did  Paul  send  him 
back  only  because  Philemon  was  a  good  master, 
and  there  was  hope  that  the  restored  fugitive 
would  be  well  treated  ?  Such  good  hope  he  in- 
deed had.  But  the  very  letter  which  the  servant 
bore  contained  the  proof  that  Paul  was  prompted 
by  regard  for  the  acknowledged  rights  of  his  mas- 
ter ;  and  the  civil  rights  of  men  are  not  abrogated 
by  Christianity,  neither  do  they  depend  upon  their 
private  characters.  We  have  every  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  the  Apostle  would  have  acted  in  the 
same  manner, — not  so  hopefully  indeed, — if  Phile- 
mon had  been  of  another  character,  because  he  has 
been  so  full  and  express,  in  others  of  his  epistles,  in 
enjoining  upon  servants  contentment  with  their 
lot  and  faithful  service  of  their  masters.  (1  Co- 
rinthians vii.  21 ;  Ephesians  vi.  5 — 8 ;  Colossians 
Hi.  2  ;  1  Timothy  vi.  1,  2 ;  comp.  1  Peter  ii.  18,  19. 
We  conclude  then  that  Onesimus  was  sent  back, 
not  because  his  master  was  a  good  man,  but  be- 


cause  he  was  his  master.  Even  as  we  would  find 
ourselves  obliged  to  return  the  fugitive  apprentice, 
the  runaway  child,  or  the  deserter  from  the  army, 
trusting  to  the  law  in  each  case  to  give  them  such 
protection  from  maltreatment  as  it  could.  And 
Onesimus  had  far  less  provision  for  his  protection 
under  the  system  of  slavery  as  it  existed  in  his  day, 
than  any  slave  under  the  worst  form  of  the  system 
as  it  exists  in  this  land. 

But,  it  is  contended  that  Onesimus  was  not  a 
slave  at  all ;  and  that  the  word  which  is  translated 
"  servant,"  in  the  New  Testament,  does  not  mean 
a  slave.  On  this  objection,  I  can  only  say  that  if 
this  be  so  then  language  has  no  definite  meaning. 
The  word  and  its  cognate  has  hardly  any  other 
meaning  than  "  bondman"  and  "  bondage,"  and  is 
frequently  translated  by  these  very  terms.  But  can 
anything  be  plainer  than  the  passage  I  have  quoted 
from  the  Old  Testament,  permitting  slavery  to  the 
Jews  ?  Or  did  any  man  ever  give  such  directions 
to  hired  servants  who  were  free  to  come  and  go  as 
they  pleased,  or  so  describe  their  condition,  as  the 
inspired  Apostle  has  done  in  respect  to  the  ser- 
vants of  his  day  ?  And  must  we  shut  up  all  his- 
tory, and  now,  for  the  first  time  ignore  the  fullness 
of  its  testimony  to  the  fact  that  at  the  very  time 
when  the  Apostles  wrote  and  acted  on  this  subject, 
as  they  did,  the  system  of  slavery  under  the  Ro- 
man empire  was  the  most  cruel  and  irresponsible 
that  ever  existed  ?  You  might  as  well  tell  us,  (as 
perhaps,  in  some  coming  century,  it  maybe  argued,) 
that  there  never  was  such  a  thing  as  a  slave  in  the 


38 

northern  States  of  this  Union,  or  that  there  is  not 
now  one  in  the  United  States  ! 

4.  But,  finally;  in  regard  to  the  provision 
of  our  own  law,  these  two  things  ought  not  to  be 
forgotten  :  first,  that  this  is  a  measure  of  self-pro- 
tection. Can  we  afford  to  be  overrun  with  the 
refuse  paupers  and  criminals  that  might  be  cast 
upon  our  shores  from  the  work-houses  and  prisons 
of  Europe  ?  Have  not  measures  again  and  again 
been  taken  to  guard  us  against  this  threatening 
irruption  ?  And  could  we,  any  better,  afford  to 
have  the  refugee  slave  population  of  the  South 
poured  in  upon  us  ?  Would  they  make  any  better 
citizens  ?  are  they  more  moral,  more  religious, 
more  happy  here,  than  they  are  alleged  to  be  where 
they  now  are  ?  Arid  is  the  North -prepared  to  wel- 
come them  en  masse  ?  In  the  single  aspect  of  the 
measure,  as  a  sanitary  cordon,  as  a  measure  of 
police,  the  law  and  the  compact  of  the  constitu- 
tion may  find  its  justification. 

But,  secondly,  the  compact  of  the  constitution 
is  the  more  obligatory  upon  us,  because  of  the 
stimulus  to  running  away  which  is  worked  from 
the  North  upon  the  slaves  of  the  South.  It  is  not 
merely  of  their  own  accord,  that  the  bulk  of  these 
refugees  have  fled  from  their  masters.  The  most 
of  them  have  not  been  spontaneous.  For  years, 
the  incitement  to  discontent  has  gone  forth  in  pub- 
lic manifestos  from  societies  in  the  North  to  the 
slaves  in  the  South ;  and  ,by  these  the  slaves  have 
been  counselled  and  urged  to  flee,  and  if  need 
were,  not  to  hesitate  at  robbery  and  murder  to 


39 

facilitate  their  escape,  or  to  prevent  recapture ! 
And  organized  arrangements  are  made  from  the 
same  quarter,  to  afford  aid  and  comfort  to  the  fugi- 
tive in  his  flight  and  to  hide  him  from  his  master. 
Was  there  ever  such  a  system  as  this,  in  operation 
in  Israel  ?  Did  the  Apostles  of  Christ  ever  en- 
courage it  by  their  counsels  to  the  slaves  of  their 
day  ?  How  do  these  things  look  when  they  are 
laid  alongside  of  the  actual  advice  and  injunctions 
which  they  gave  ?  And  yet,  with  the  Bible  in  our 
hands,  with  its  express,  specific  legislation  upon 
this  subject  before  our  eyes,  we  are  told  that  there 
is  a  higher  law  that  is  to  enforce  upon  our  con- 
sciences the  virtues  of  truce-breaking,  men-steal- 
ing,* and  perjury,  and  assassination  and  disobedi* 
ence  to  God,  in  violating  the  law  of  the  land  ! 
And  we  are  charged  with  inhumanity,  and  irreli- 
gion,  and  base  servility,  because  we  will  not  be- 
lieve it,  nor  teach  men  so  ; — because  we  will  not 
give  our  consent  to  doctrines  that  God  has  not 
taught, — whose  tendency  is  to  tear  this  fair  land 

*  There  has  been  a  very  liberal  application  of  this  term,  by 
those  whom  it  more  befits,  to  slave-owners,  to  whom,  I  think,  it 
never  refers,  either  in  classical  writers  or  in  the  sacred  scriptures. 
The  man-stealing,  which  by  the  Jewish  law  was  punished  by 
death,  (Exodus  xxi.  16  ;  coinp.  Deut.  xxiv  7,)  was  the  kidnap- 
ping or  stealing  of  a  free-born  Israelite,  with  intent  to  make  a 
slave  of  him,  most  probably  to  sell  him  out  of  the  land,  and  was 
therefore  a  most  heinous  crime.  The  term  occurs  but  once  in  the 
New  Testament,  (1  Timothy  i.  10;  avdQnno8tarrlg.')  It  refers 
not  only  to  those  who  steal  men  to  make  them  slaves,  but  also  to 
those  'who  seduce  slaves  from  their  masters.  (See  Scapula, 
Hedericus,  Liddell  <J-  Scott,  Schleusner,  Parkhurst.) 


in  sunder  and  to  drench  its  smiling  valleys  with 
the  blood  of  servile,  internecine  war!  O,  MY 

SOUL,  COME  NOT  THOU  INTO  THEIR  SECRET;  UNTO 
THEIR  ASSEMBLY,  MINE  HONOUR,  BE  NOT  THOU 
UNITED  ! 

A  word  of  advice,  and  I  am  done. 

Be  thankful,  my  brethren,  that  you  have  so  little 
to  complain  of. 

Instead  of  vituperating  your  rulers,  pray  for 
them. 

Remember  your  subjection  to  Christ.  Seek  the 
grace  and  protection  of  the  King  of  Zion.  He  will 
guide  you  with  his  counsel,  and  give  liberally  to 
those  who  ask  Him,  that  celestial  Wisdom  which 
is  pure  and  peaceable,  gentle,  and  easy  to  be  en- 
treated, full  of  mercy  and  of  good  fruits,  without 
partiality  and  without  hypocrisy.  You  may  safely 
trust  in  Him  and  in  the  word  of  His  grace,  to 
break  every  galling  yoke,  to  undo  the  sorest  bur- 
den that  oppresses  the  heavy  laden,  and  to  give 
them  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  makes  free,  and 
to  the  weary  that  true  rest  which  remaineth  for 
the  people  of  God. 


Cj ay  lord  == 

SPEEDY  BINDER 

Syracuse,  N.  Y.  , 
i   Stockton.  Calif.  • 


3  1205  01733  0265 


If.  50 

K? 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


06  1996 


RETDJAN30199C 


Series  9482 


12 


